Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 121054 (ALL)

YASIN ALI @ YASIN AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. REVENUE CIVIL SECTT. LKO AND 4 OTHERS

WRIC/1016/2025 · 2025-02-10

Om Prakash Shukla, Rajan Roy

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:8588-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1016 of 2025 Petitioner :- Yasin Ali @ Yasin And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Civil Sectt. Lko And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar Asthana,Rizwanul Haque Ansari,Santi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J. Heard. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed the following reliefs:- “(a.) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the opposite paries to restrain the to take appropriate action against Mohd. Haneef who is the disturbing the possession of the petitioners over the land having gata no. 776, Measuring 0.9260 situated at village Berihataranpur, Tehsil and District - Lakhimpur Kheri. (b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the opposite parties to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 15.01.2025." We wanted to point out to the petitioners' Counsel that the relief no. (a) is not properly worded and is incongruous i.e. “opposite parties to restrain the to take appropriate action against Mohd. Haneef", but he would not listen. In any case, the petitioners' Counsel could not point out any such provision of law under which the official opposite parties could take any action against Mohd. Haneef who is alleged to be disturbing the possession of the petitioner. Moreover, Mohd. Haneef is not even arrayed as an opposite party herein. Even if, there was any dispute between the petitioner and the said person, and the petitioner claims to have won up to the Supreme Court, then proper remedy is to get the decree or order in his favour executed rather than file a writ petition. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere in the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. This will, however, not prejudice the petitioner in seeking appropriate relief / remedy before the appropriate forum / Court whether it be under civil / revenue or criminal law. Order Date :- 10.2.2025/Lokesh Kumar [Om Prakash Shukla, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.] Digitally signed by :- LOKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench